You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

When I gave the hand to Michael Rosenberg, he said that he would bid, knowing that was an unusual choice. I was curious as to whether he would have any company.

At my table, it actually went 4♠ - X - XX! I didn't bother giving that as a problem because it would be too dependent on who the opponents were, and possibly being there at the table.

Alas, our teammates lost 10 IMPs for +990, when both tables made an overtrick. The result was pretty random - we happened to have a 5-5 club fit, and opener was 8-1-4-0. The doubler's hand was K,KQ9x,Kxx,AQJxx. Dummy had ♠Ax. A diamond lead would hold it to 4. I don't think there is a lot to learn from this particular deal, but people may be curious.

I was curious as to thoughts on how far out there bidding over the double is. Thanks for the replies.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Michael Rosenberg has spoken of this squeeze often to many of the more advanced juniors he has coached, trying to impress on them to look for it when a 3N seems hopeless on the surface. The position is really quite common. At one point I heard some of them refer to it as a Michael Rosenberg squeeze. Kevin and I call it a Dad squeeze.

I see in comments below that there are more technical names, which I dont think I had not been aware of. I'll stick to Dad squeeze.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Imo, not at all. For one thing, a squeeze without the count can involve just two suits. Also, in a squeeze without the count, typically the pitch in the suit where declarer is threatening to lose a trick to establish a winner is relevant. Here, you could always knock out the ♣A to establish club trick, the key is forcing the defender to pitch enough spades. And that involves the heart threat too…

This particular type of triple squeeze (or at least the potential for it) is quite common in 3N. One defender has an Ace (or equivalent), a second suit in which they must guard a slow trick, and one or more established winners in a third suit. If they pitch down to not enough winners to beat 3N, declarer can simply knock out the Ace (sometimes actually a King, or equivalent).

On the OP deal, the fact that W will be “endplayed” into leading a heart might be causing some to call this a strip squeeze. But a strip squeeze also typically involves only two suits. And this squeeze would operate equally well if W held QJT of hearts, and dummy K94, with no throw in element in play. The heart T trick isn't relevant, once declarer has established club tricks.

The key is that they can't keep enough winners to stop declarer from “knocking out the Ace.”

We do have a name for this squeeze in my home, though I'm sure it's not in any books.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I'm not sure I get this, Steve. Are your calculations assuming that W will ALWAYS duck with the ♣K if he can? If so, do you think that assumption is realistic against most (or any) opponents?

I haven't tried to calculate the percentages, but it seems clear to take the club finesse IF it's going to lose. I understand that once the club finesse wins, it seems clearly better to have started with the diamond finesse, and maybe that is even best irrespective of how often they will duck.

I suspect the answer requires an assessment of how often W will duck, though I'm not sure.

Maybe I should have presented this from trick one, but irl the declarer played as indicated, followed in the post mortem by discussion as to what was best from there, so I was more interested in that.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Ed asked: “I'm curious. If you think your partner's explanation is incorrect, but it matches your holding, why did you make that bid?”

Simple example: Your partner explains that your bid promised 5 hearts. You are sure that your bid promised only 4+ hearts, but you happen to have 5.

Do you say anything? This has been discussed in expert circles for as long as I've been playing bridge, still with no consensus reached.

Kit's above comment, laying out his approach (starting with “Here is how I handle things”) addresses this situation in a clear, and imo, very reasonable way. It is probably the approach most likely to avoid controversy, though I doubt that any approach can completely avoid it.

It would be best if there were an official regulation spelling out how one should handle this situation. However, imo, such a thing is practical only if we start having separate laws and regulations for high level play. I certainly don't want to try to explain this issue to players in the 99er game.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

For me the answer depends on the definition of “is.” (reminder - no politics allowed).

Without a partnership agreement, I would assume “weak” with most partners, though I certainly wouldn't vote for that option as presented in the poll. “Partner should raise only with a hand that didn't double because of short spades” So Axxx, xxxxx, AKx, x shouldn't raise?

With a partnership agreement, it would depend on the partner. I think intermediate is probably the most useful treatment, irrespective of vul, yet I've had that agreement with only a couple of partners. With others it is either always weak, or intermediate only if vul.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

I'm curious as to Chip's thoughts on this. When Chip was our NPC in the early 90's, the beer card had only recently become a thing in the U.S, and I was too serious then to be into it at all, but most of the juniors were. I don't remember Chip's attitude toward juniors focusing on the beer card, and wonder whether it was similar to Michael's now.

You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.

Hey, Chip. Congratulations, again!

Thank you for captaining the US junior teams in 1991 and 1993. I'm pretty sure I was not nearly as grateful as I should have been back then, nor did I appreciate what I great opportunity I had to learn from you.Though I was oblivious at the time, looking back now it seems we must have been a handful. While I enjoy coaching juniors these days, NPC is not a role I've been willing to accept. How did you manage to stay sane?